Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We spent a good time here yesterday debating and voting on a resolution to sue the President for doing his job, and we are up to about the same kind of tricks today. But if that show yesterday of the Republican obstinance wasn't enough, last night at 10:30, the majority changed the rules in the House to block efforts to achieve a long-term solution to our infrastructure problem. Can you believe that? I want my colleagues and everyone else to know what the majority is up to.

Mr. Speaker, we know and everybody knows that we need a long-term highway bill that would create more jobs and strengthen our infrastructure and provide more certainty for highway construction. And under the rules of the House--always--any Member of the House would have had the right to bring up real solutions to this problem, but not any more. In the middle of the night, the Republicans at the Rules Committee took that right away and gave it to one person, only one person out of 435: the Republican leader. It seems that Republicans are so fixated with my way or the highway that they are even willing to change the rules of the House to block a vote.

This parliamentary trick has only been used once before in the history of the House--only once--and it was during the government shutdown that we recently experienced. While they were obsessing over how to deny people health care, they changed the rules to ensure that no one could open the government back up. None of us could bring that up except one person, just one: the Republican leader. And the last time they pulled this stunt with the government shutdown, it cost the economy of the United States $24 billion. That is with a B.

Now, we don't know what will happen this time, but what we do know is that it is a dangerous ploy that will undermine economic recovery and job creation. The interest here today is not with the people of the United States; it is purely, absolutely a political stunt after the stunts yesterday. And the whole bill, what we are doing on the border issue, again, is simply a diversionary tactic that signifies not much.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a 12-year-old girl who was trafficked for sex and labor and escaped slavery with her baby and received a T visa in the United States.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service: Voices of Central American

Youth--Why They Are Fleeing Their Countries

Background on the Humanitarian Crisis in Central America

Since the Fall of 2011, prior to the President's

announcement of DACA, Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

started apprehending significantly more unaccompanied minors

from Central America. ORR promptly started to open more

shelters and detention sites for these children.

Updated data from the UNHCR, has shown a 712% increase in

asylum requests in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and

Belize by nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

ORR has reported a significant increase in both younger

children and girls coming.

Maria, a 12 year old girl from Central America, was

trafficked for labor and sex, she fled with her baby to

escape slavery. Maria was 12 years old, when she was

kidnapped at gunpoint and taken to a home where she was held

captive. She was beaten and raped on an almost daily basis

and eventually forced into prostitution. Because of this she

became pregnant and gave birth to a girl while captive. Maria

fled with her child, riding on top of trains so that they

might escape the sexual bondage. Maria ended up qualifying

for a T-visa and is currently doing well She has now

graduated high school.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Today, we are taking up the very serious issue of the constitutionality of separation of powers, but the rule also covers the deregulation of pesticides. I think that should be noted here as well, because one is as ridiculous as the other.

This is a ridiculous lawsuit of one House of Congress seeking to sue the President for not implementing a law they have tried everything to kill.

The majority has wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the real problems of the United States.

Instead of tackling climate change, ensuring that college is affordable, and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure, the majority wants to sue the President for doing his job. The record is clear. This has been judged the most recalcitrant and useless Congress in history.

This lawsuit will be a monumental waste of time, energy, and funds. This is a political maneuver timed to peak as Americans go to the polls in November for the midterm elections. This lawsuit is a drumbeat pushing Members of the Republican Party to impeachment.

Last week in the Rules Committee, Democrats attempted to amend this resolution. In the pursuit of transparency and accountability, we offered

several amendments that addressed the cost of this lawsuit.

The majority in the Rules Committee voted down every amendment that the minority offered. With this closed rule, we have set a new record, by the way, for the most closed rules in a single Congress. On the committee level, on the House floor, and in the minds of our citizens, this is a closed process, a partisan maneuver, and nothing but a political messaging opportunity.

This lawsuit is a gimmick, which even legal scholars of the majority's own party say will fail, including the conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C. McCarthy. He wrote about this lawsuit and said it is:

A classic case of assuming the pose of meaningful action

while in reality doing nothing.

Democrats in the House and the American people could not agree more.

The House minority has three main concerns about this lawsuit: first, the cost; second, the partisan nature; and third, the lack of legal standing and the implications for our constitutional separation of powers.

First, the cost. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which not a single Republican voted for, the majority has mounted a Herculean effort trying to repeal, dismantle, and discredit it. It seems that they will spare no expense attempting to take health care away from millions of Americans.

Not only did they shut down the government to deny Americans health care, it took from this economy $24 billion to pay for that shutdown. In addition, with over 50 votes on the House floor to undermine the Affordable Care Act, the majority has spent more than $79 million on that voting effort.

When the minority of the Rules Committee requested from the majority the proximate costs of this lawsuit, we got a response that read: ``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.''

Cost is not a hypothetical question, because there are real consequences for our country.

The minority and the American people still would like to know how much will this cost and where will the money come from. We asked directly through letters and by offering amendments to the resolution, and we have gotten no clear answers.

What cuts will come from what programs that Americans depend on to pay for this ridiculous lawsuit? The majority will spend money on more than 13 hearings, 50 briefings, 25,000 pages of documents produced, and allocated $3.3 million for a Select Committee on Benghazi. All that money for Benghazi, but they won't give us a concrete answer on where the funds will originate to pay for the lawsuit.

In a similar lawsuit, when Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, they paid their lawyers $520 an hour. I choke over that figure. At that rate, we would have paid over $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. If we are spending that kind of money, we ought to do it out in the open, and that amendment was defeated on party lines.

The majority does not intend to make this lawsuit anything but another opportunity to attack the President, which leads me to our second concern: its partisan nature.

As I said, no Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. After strenuous efforts to take health care away from millions of Americans, the majority plans to file a lawsuit that, if successful, would result in the faster implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The inconsistency is breathtaking. Let me reiterate that. After not a single vote for health care, with over 50 votes to kill it, they are suing the President of the United States because he did not implement it faster. I don't know if anybody can make sense out of that, but all this effort to derail a law that is working. Just 2 days ago, The Washington Post reported in an article, titled ``Medicare finances improve partly due to ACA, hospital expenses, trustee report says,'' that the Affordable Care Act has extended the life of Medicare by 4 years because of the savings, and that will only get better.

I would like to insert this article from The Washington Post dated July 28, 2014, into the Record.

[From the Washington Post, July 28, 2014]

Medicare Finances Improve Partly Due to ACA, Hospital Expenses, Trustee

Report Says--Outlook for Social Security, However, Remains the Same

(By Amy Goldstein)

Medicare's financial stability has been strengthened by the

Affordable Care Act and other forces that have been subduing

health-care spending, according to a new official forecast

that says the fund covering the program's hospital costs will

remain solvent until 2030--four years later than expected a

year ago.

The annual report, issued Monday by trustees overseeing the

government's two largest entitlement programs, found little

change overall in the finances of Social Security. The

trustees warned, however, that the part of Social Security

that pays monthly benefits to people with disabilities is

especially fragile and, without changes, will start to run

short of money for benefit checks in 2016.

Taken together, the findings provide a nuanced portrait of

the fiscal future of these two programs, which act as

cornerstones of social insurance--and a buffer against

poverty--for older people and other vulnerable Americans. The

trustees welcomed the improved financial prospects for

Medicare but acknowledged that the underlying reasons are not

yet entirely understood. At the same time, they exhorted

Congress to take steps to prevent both programs from

collapsing in the long term.

``Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain

projected long-run program costs,'' the trustees said in a

message accompanying their reports.

For the past few decades, Democrats and Republicans have

fretted about the unsustainability of the Medicare and Social

Security programs. They have appointed high-level

commissions, proposed legislation and tried to stoke public

fears that benefits might not be available for their

parents--or themselves. But Congress has not restructured

either program to withstand long-term fiscal pressures, and

the issue has been absent lately from the agendas of both

parties.

At a news briefing Monday, Cabinet secretaries and two

public trustees reiterated the call for Congress to act.

``[We] must make manageable changes now, so we do not have to

make drastic changes later,'' Treasury Secretary Jack Lew

said.

``It is getting very late in the game'' to find a

bipartisan consensus, said the trustees' only Republican,

Charles P. Blahous III, who worked on Social Security and

other economic issues as an aide to President George W. Bush.

``A solution much further delayed is a solution much less

likely to occur.''

Both programs are being strained by the nation's

demographics. As more baby boomers reach retirement age,

people 65 and older are making up an increasing percentage of

the country's population, with proportionally fewer working-

age Americans chipping in payroll taxes.

Medicare's finances are facing other pressures, too,

including from scientific advances that lead to new treatment

and therapies, the report said.

The trustees' forecast said that the trust fund that pays

for hospital care--Medicare Part A--has been strengthened

significantly, with the date when it is predicted to start

running short of money extended by 14 years since the

Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. The report also

predicted that the insurance premiums that older Americans

pay for the portion of Medicare that covers doctors' visits

and other outpatient care would probably remain the same for

a third year in a row.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell

said that it is impossible so far to gauge how much of that

trust fund's improved fiscal health was due to the health-

care law as opposed to other changes in the health-care

system that are slowing cost increases. She said both had a

role. The ACA, for instance, is slowing payments to Medicare

Advantage, the part of the program in which older Americans

join private health plans, while other provisions focus on

curbing hospital readmissions.

The report said that spending on hospital stays last year

was less than expected, although trustees noted that analysts

have not determined whether this trend reflected broad

economic trends or stemmed from specific changes in the

practice of medical care.

If Medicare is unchanged by 2030, the year it is projected

to become insolvent, it would then be able to pay 85 percent

of its beneficiaries' hospital bills, a proportion that would

slip to 75 percent by 2047, the forecast said.

For Social Security, the trustees predicted that the

program's two separate trust funds will, combined, have

enough money to pay all the retirement and disability

benefits it owes until 2033, the same time horizon as in the

last two annual forecasts. They forecast that Social Security

will be able to afford checks for retirees and workers'

survivors until 2034--nearly two decades longer than the part

of the program that pays disability benefits.

Social Security's expenditures last year exceeded its

income from payroll taxes, as it has each year since 2010,

the report says, although interest so far is making up the

difference.

This year, President Obama backed away from an idea he

broached in his budget last year to save money for Social

Security by changing the basis on which inflation is

calculated for the program. But his 2015 budget proposal

reprises the idea of charging more for care under Medicare to

older Americans who are relatively well-off--an idea that

Congress has not touched this year.

In calculating Medicare's future finances, the trustees for

the first time acknowledged that Congress has each year

overridden scheduled reductions in Medicare doctors' fees--

cuts that, if adopted, would lower payments for doctors'

services by 21 percent in 2015. In the latest report, the

trustees assumed that such cuts would continue to be waived.

The trustees noted that their new forecast was released 49

years to the week that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the

law that enacted Medicare, a major component of the Great

Society programs of the mid-1960s. Social Security was a

response to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Last year, Medicare insured 52 million Americans, including

43.5 million age 65 and older and nearly 9 million younger

people with disabilities. Social Security last year provided

benefits to 41 million retired workers and their families, 6

million survivors of workers who died, and 11 million

working-age people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll from the Commonwealth Fund found 77 percent of people were pleased with their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent satisfaction rate with the new plan that they have bought.

The House majority is going to spend unknown millions of dollars coming from somewhere to stymie a law their own party Members support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this article from Talking Points Memo, citing a survey from July 10, 2014, entitled: ``Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought ObamaCare Coverage Like Their Plans,'' into the Record.

[From Talking Points Memo Livewire, July 10, 2014]

Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought Obamacare Coverage Like Their Plans

(By Dylan Scott)

About three-quarters of Republicans who obtained health

insurance under Obamacare are satisfied with their coverage,

according to a survey published Thursday by the Commonwealth

Fund.

The survey found that 74 percent of Republicans said they

were very or somewhat satisfied with their new coverage.

Overall, 78 percent of Americans said they were satisfied: 73

percent of those enrolled in a private plan and 84 percent of

those enrolled in Medicaid.

There was a minimal difference between the previously

uninsured and the previously insured: 79 percent of the

former were satisfied and 77 percent of the latter were,

according to the survey by the group, which is generally

supportive of Obamacare.

Those surveyed also reported being better off: 58 percent

said that they were better off now than they were before,

while 9 percent said they were worse off. And 81 percent said

that they were optimistic that their new coverage would help

them get the health care they need.

Some of the survey's broader findings, on the overall drop

in the number of uninsured and the percentage of Obamacare

enrollees who were previously uninsured, generally fell

within other findings. It found that the uninsured rate for

adults under 65 fell from 20 percent to 15 percent since

Obamacare enrollment began. It also found that 63 percent of

Obamacare enrollees had been previously uninsured.

The survey, conducted from April 9 to June 2, covered 4,425

U.S. adults.

Mr. Speaker, it is also obvious to the American people that this is a political stunt. A recent poll, commissioned by CNN, shows 57 percent of us oppose this lawsuit. That is right: the majority of this country recognizes it for what it is: a political scheme. They recognize that there is no basis for this lawsuit.

And our third concern is the legitimacy of standing, in the legal sense, as well as the constitutional principles that the Supreme Court has said limit the kind of disputes that a court can consider.

Perhaps the best authority for the inadequacy of the majority's claim to standing is one of the majority's own witnesses at our Rules hearing, the Florida International University College of Law professor, Elizabeth Price Foley. Professor Foley wrote in a February article:

When a President delays or exempts people from a law--so-

called benevolent suspensions--who has standing to sue him?

Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don't, by

definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for

standing.

That's why, when President Obama delayed various provisions

of ObamaCare, his actions cannot be challenged in court.

Congress probably can't sue the President, either.

If the majority's own witness doesn't think that Congress has standing, what judge will?

Finally, one of the most dangerous possible consequences of this lawsuit would be an unprecedented transfer of powers from the legislative to the judicial branch.

This concern for maintaining the separation of powers as it was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers is exactly why courts have established what is called the ``political question doctrine.''

It says that courts should stay out of fights between the other two branches of the Federal Government and should defer to the other branches when the Constitution says the matter to be resolved is the responsibility of the President or the Congress. That couldn't be clearer, Mr. Speaker.

The mismanagement of our Nation's funds is deplorable, the partisan nature of the stunt is a abundantly clear, and our constitutional balance of powers is in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the closed rule which, yet again, distorts the legislative process and stifles debate even on the most important issues.

Mr. Speaker, we will ask the House to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up four bills: first, the Bring Jobs Home Act; second, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which pays women equal to men for the same job; third, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10; and finally, the Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which makes it easier for young people to pay their college loans.

These are the priorities of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and align themselves with those priorities instead of this lawsuit, which is surely a waste of time, money, and resources.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the fact that only Democrats are speaking of impeachment.

Just today, The Hill newspaper announced that a most respected and admired member of the Republican Conference said of the lawsuit, spearheaded by John Boehner:

Theater is a show. Why not impeach instead of wasting $1

million to $2 million of the taxpayers' money? If you are

serious about that, use what the Founders of the Constitution

gave us.

He was referring to impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I will place into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Sessions and between Ranking Member Brady and Chairwoman Miller of the House Administration Committee. This exchange of letters catalogs our repeated requests for an estimate of the projected cost of this partisan enterprise and the identification of accounts that will be cut to pay for it. As you will note, the responses to our letter provide no information about the cost estimate and no indication from where the funds will come.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2014.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner: Within the draft resolution to

initiate a lawsuit against the President, we learned that you

intend to seek authorization to ``employ the services of

outside counsel and other experts.'' Such authority clearly

falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration, and as such, I am writing to express my

expectation that Republicans will be open and transparent

about the use of taxpayer money in pursuing this highly

dubious and partisan lawsuit.

As evidenced by House Republicans' conduct in the $2.3

million failed effort to defend the discriminatory and

unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in the courts,

strong bipartisan oversight is clearly necessary in any plan

to hire outside counsel. The Republican majority must not be

permitted to use taxpayer dollars as a slush fund to award a

no-bid contract to high-priced, politically connected

Republican lawyers without any transparency or accountability

to the House or the American people.

Our opposition to the deeply partisan basis of your lawsuit

in no way diminishes the need for normal oversight of the

terms of any contract signed by Republican Leadership

obligating the House to pay millions of dollars to private

attorneys. Therefore, I expect you will honor regular order

through my committee, even with this highly irregular

lawsuit.

The American people deserve to know how and where their tax

dollars are being spent, and House Administration Committee

Democrats insist on regular consultation and transparency in

the selection criteria and process, cost, and lobbying

connections of any counsel or experts hired in the name of

the House.

Sincerely,

Robert Brady,

Ranking Member,

Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, if people are supposed to think that this is really a genuine concern by the House of Representatives and not a partisan gimmick, then why didn't the majority consult with Democrats or the Senate beforehand and say: We want to do this on behalf of Congress. Will you talk with us about participating?

That idea of joint participation is long gone from here, and I regret to say that.

But that didn't happen. It was cooked up in some meeting where we probably discussed how to win back the Senate, or whether to impeach the President, or how the campaign fundraising is going and so forth.

You are not fooling anyone. This is about politics and the elections, and you know it and I know it and, polling shows it, all the people in the country know it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to ask: Why did the majority shut off all amendments to this resolution? And more importantly, why have they even blocked a traditional motion to recommit? That is something that we generally always give to the minority on both sides of the aisle, a motion to recommit.

Now, I think the reason is--you know, being somewhat cynical, and I will admit to that after what we have been through here--but the cynic would say that they don't want us to have a motion to recommit because our side might bring up a motion, which it would be our privilege to do, that might put the Republican Members on record on impeachment. Now, I don't know that. We got no answer as to why we were not given the privilege of a motion to recommit.

But there is one thing we do know. We know that this lawsuit is going to cost unknown millions and will be an unconscionable waste. We know that that cost is going to come out of programs that have already suffered grievous cuts over the last few years and on which people oftentimes depend for their very lives.

We know that it is pretty partisan because the Democrats were never consulted at any point on this issue, and we know that it is flawed because experts have told us that there is no way in the world that the House of Representatives has any standing on this issue and that a good Federal judge will send it back to us almost immediately.

We know it is a distraction, and we know that what it distracts us from are the serious, serious issues that all of us hear about every day from our own constituencies.

Do you think anybody ever calls me up and says: Why don't we impeach the President or go after the President because it is raining today and it surely is his fault? No, we don't hear that.

I hear about, I am having a hard time getting a new job. I need help to pay for my child's education. I hear a lot of times, my daughter's unemployment benefits have run out. She is facing eviction. I don't know what I am going to do. I hear from people who talk about the children who have come to this country--many of them unaccompanied, by themselves--in an absolute inhumane wave of human suffering that we need to pay some attention to.

I know that out there today, we have had floods in my part of the country in upstate New York that have devastated entire water projects and sewer projects, and something needs to be done. But we won't do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and please vote ``no'' on the rule. This is one of the

most important issues that we have ever faced during our time in Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, conservative thinkers and legal scholars are discrediting this lawsuit against the President. They are exposing it for what it is: a political stunt timed to peak in November as Americans are heading to the polls for the midterm elections.

For example, Harvard Law Professor and Former Assistant Attorney General under President George W. Bush Jack Goldsmith wrote: ``the lawsuit will almost certainly fail, and should fail for lack of congressional standing.''

Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, wrote that the Framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a ``system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.''

Conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C. McCarthy wrote recently that this lawsuit is ``a classic case of assuming the pose of meaningful action while in reality doing nothing.''

Heavens to Betsy, how much more do we have to hear that this is not going to work?

A recent poll by CNN found that 57 percent of Americans oppose the lawsuit. Yes, the majority of the American

people recognize it for what it is: political theater. They recognize this lawsuit is not only a distraction from the real problems that plague our Nation, but that it is designed to appease radical Republicans clamoring for impeachment.

The Rules Committee, of which I am ranking member, was the only committee to consider this lawsuit. Under regular order, the House Administration Committee would have also held hearings and a markup because they are the ``money'' committee that handles the House's internal accounts, but they were not given the chance to do so.

Over the past 3 weeks, the Rules Committee heard testimony from constitutional scholars who debated the merits of the lawsuit and offered several amendments. The minority on our committee offered nearly a dozen amendments aimed at bringing some transparency and accountability to this process, and they were all voted down along party lines.

Democrats offered an amendment that would have required that this political stunt be funded from the Benghazi Select Committee's budget, another political stunt. After the 14 investigations of the Benghazi tragedy, they have allocated $3.3 million to continue to chase after a nonexistent scandal.

We offered an amendment that would have ensured that any law firms contracted for this lawsuit were not also lobbyists trying to influence us at the same time that they represented us in court, a clear conflict of interest.

We even offered an amendment that would have required disclosure of which programs and budgets in the Federal budget will be reduced to pay for the lawsuit. Would the funds come from the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the House Armed Services Committee? We don't know, because the majority has refused to tell us.

Before they vote today, Members of this House deserve to know exactly which legislative branch functions will be curtailed to pay for this folly. Otherwise, how can we cast an informed vote?

We focused our amendments on cost because of how important cost is. It is not, as has been stated here, an imaginary concern. Republicans have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in this month alone passing over $700 billion, with a B, of unpaid-for tax extenders on this House floor. Republicans took $24 billion out of the economy when they shut down the government to deny health care to millions. And, according to CBS News, the majority has wasted over $79 million on the more than 50 votes for the House floor to dismantle, to undermine, and to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Where in the world does it stop?

When Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and employed outside counsel in a similar lawsuit--with the fate that we believe this will have--they cost the American taxpayers $2.3 million. We learned later that their lawyers charged $520 an hour--an hour, and at that rate, they would have been paid $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek.

So what will this lawsuit cost, Mr. Speaker? That is what we want to know. The minority requested this information. The majority replied: ``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.''

We could be spending money on our crumbling infrastructure, investing in our education system, making it easier for our children to go to college, even building some high-speed rail--we are about the only country left in the world that doesn't have any--or addressing climate change. We just had a terrible flood in my district and next door, where they have lost sewer systems, water systems. We could be doing so many other things than simply throwing this money away.

The idea of fiscal responsibility, of fiscal tightness, absolutely is decimated in just what I have said already at this time, the money wasted here, with nothing for it, when the needs are so great and the population cries out for relief. But instead of investing in our country, the majority insists on bringing a lawsuit that, if it is successful, will do the opposite of everything they have been trying to accomplish since 2010.

Yes, after years of rallying against the Affordable Care Act, not one of them would vote for it as it passed the House, voting to derail it, working against it--pay attention here--they are suing the President for not implementing it fast enough. And if that makes no sense to you, you are not alone. We don't understand it either.

Not only is this logic upside-down and inside out, it is directly against the feelings of members of their own party. A recent poll from the Commonwealth Fund found that 77 percent of people were pleased with their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent satisfaction rate with the new plans that they have bought.

Now before us, we have a lawsuit that has been ridiculed and railed against by conservative thinkers and progressives alike. It is a deplorable waste of taxpayer funds and would go against everything the Republicans have been working for for 4 years. The Republicans that I worked with in this Congress when I first came here would not even think of this.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to bring to a close this sorry spectacle of legislative malpractice. It really saddens me to think that we have arrived at this point in this legislative year when we are about to go home for 5 weeks of legislative work in the district when we should be here on the floor taking care of the very many issues that people have talked about all day.

But most importantly, this lawsuit goes against everything that the majority has been working for for the last 4 years. They have tried over 50 times, spending $79 million, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And no one, frankly, listening to this is now going to believe that there is this great change of heart and they are so broken up that it wasn't implemented in time and by the book that you are going to try to sue the President of the United States. I don't think even to kids watching Sesame Street that would make any sense. In fact, the strongest arguments about it really come from the majority's own party. It is sadly a partisan political election year stunt, and it has no place in this House.

As I said earlier today, when I first came here, the bipartisanship was so wonderful and strong that the New York delegation, all of us, stood together on issue after issue. I miss that terribly and long for it to come back.

In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is actually a package of four bills--H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, and H.R. 4318--which aim to derail the Endangered Species Act.

The four bills are a product of the House Natural Resources Committee's Endangered Species Working Group, a committee working group which had not one Democrat Member on it, so that there was no bipartisan discussion. There is always room to discuss how we can improve legislation, but the negotiations should not be limited to backroom negotiations with a select few from a single party.

It is ironic the bill is entitled ``21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act'' when the process to create the bill was anything but transparent. If the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved in order to better achieve the bill's purpose, then let's have a robust bipartisan conversation in an open forum, which is what we call the committee process.

Now, the package we are considering today, however, does not have any bipartisan support because it would create additional red tape that undermines essential protections provided for the Endangered Species Act.

The Endangered Species Act was passed over 40 years ago to protect imperiled animals and plants from extinction, and it is one of the most important tools we have to ensure our Nation's wildlife is protected for future generations.

These bills today do nothing to continue that wonderful background, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act.

We all know that our nation's children are our most precious resource, and we wish that every child had the opportunity to grow up in a family that loved and protected them, but unfortunately that is not the case.

As a result, about 400,000 children are in the foster care system as we speak. In the last few years, there have been great improvements in how we care for foster children, particularly the focus on supporting youth as they age out of the system.

But there is a stain on the American foster care system that we have not adequately addressed: child sex trafficking. Child sex trafficking is truly one of the most deplorable and disgusting crimes any adult can commit, and it's our job to do all that we can to end it--especially when so many victims are children for whom we have taken responsibility in the foster care system.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tells us that 60% of runaways who are victims of sex trafficking were at one time in the custody of social services or in foster care. In my home state of New York, 85% of trafficking victims have prior child welfare involvement. While state-specific numbers vary throughout the country, they all tell us that something more needs to be done.

To add insult to injury, far too often, state child welfare systems fail to properly identify and assist trafficked and exploited children. Instead of being cared for and supported, these children are often sent to the juvenile justice system and criminalized for, at no fault of their own, being raped and trafficked! These children are victims, and we have a moral obligation to protect them.

I'm a proud original co-sponsor of the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act, which would help identify exploited children, train child protective services workers to appropriately respond to them, and connect child victims to specialized services so that they can begin the process of recovery. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a directive for HHS to report on any barriers in Federal laws or regulations that may be preventing States from properly identifying, assessing, and serving children who are victims of trafficking. I believe one such barrier is that currently, under the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act, young victims of trafficking are not automatically defined as victims of abuse and neglect. Making a definitional change would ensure that these children, who are clearly victims, are supported and protected, not sent to the juvenile justice system for prosecution. I look forward to receiving this report next year and working with my colleagues to make that change for the sake of these young people who deserve our protection.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone had told me that at the beginning of my career that I would fight 40 years for the right for contraception, I would never have believed it. We thought Griswold v. Connecticut had settled this, but no. It's been a constant war to control women, which is exactly what this is about.

Now, this audacious Supreme Court, which never fails to surprise, decided that bosses can tell you what kind of healthcare you can have and whether or not you can practice contraception. More specifically, the 5 men on this court decided whether women can have equal access to contraception.

And let's not forget, for male employees of these firms, their wives and daughters who are on their healthcare coverage will also be discriminated against and treated differently.

The stupidity of this Supreme Court decision is that it completely overlooks the fact that 58 percent of the women who get prescription oral contraceptives do it not just for birth control, but for another medical reason, such as endometriosis, ovarian cysts, or Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Even those women will be out of luck, which means they don't have the same rights as all those men who buy Viagra. That's still covered.

The most dangerous thing that has happened here is that this court has set a precedent for the nearly 48 cases currently working their way through the courts filed by for-profit companies about contraception coverage. Those 48 cases now have this decision as legal precedent.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the idea of blood transfusions, vaccinations, and treatment for HIV/AIDS would no longer be covered. With this court, we are pedaling backward to the 19th century but I've got news for the five men on the court behind this decision: the women of America don't want to go! And this bill helps ensure that we don't.

H.R. 5051, The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act--also called the ``Not My Boss's Business Act''--would ensure that an employer that provides a group health plan for its employees does not deny coverage of a specific health care item or service to its employees or covered dependents of employees where that coverage is mandated by Federal law.

The bill specifically states the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not excuse or relieve this duty, and allows for the existing exemption for houses of worship and accommodation for religious non- profit organizations that do not wish to provide coverage of contraceptives.

The women of this country don't want a court or anyone else to determine that they are second-class citizens, and this bill would put an end to that. And what we need is a vote. We're all here today to call on Speaker Boehner to bring this to the floor. Wouldn't that be something?

Mr. Speaker, the House has been given two opportunities to defeat the previous question: once on Tuesday, and another today. Both times, we offered an amendment to the rule that would have given Members an opportunity to consider reversing the damage done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. Both times, the House has rejected this measure.

No employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its employees--male or female. It is pure discrimination, when 99 percent of women in this country have used some form of birth control during their lifetime--but now have to literally go to unreasonable measures to simply secure the fundamental health care they need.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, provided $68 million for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser

Energetics (LLE), a $4 million increase over last year.

I strongly support this funding for LLE, which is a unique national resource and one of the crown jewels of New York State. One of two lasers at LLE, the OMEGA laser is the world's second most powerful ultraviolet fusion laser in the world. The second of LLE's lasers, the OMEGA EP (Extended Performance) laser, is a high-intensity, high-energy short-pulse laser. The LLE is a vital component of our nation's scientific capital and leadership, a key to strategic work on an independent energy future, a leader in developing innovative approaches to enhancing our national security, and a crucial part of New York's high-tech economy. It also serves as the principal laser research facility for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

The LLE has attracted nearly $2 billion to the State of New York and more than 1,000 individuals whose jobs are tied to the program. The laser lab also provides a strong stimulus to the local economy through start-up companies such as QED Technologies, Lucid Inc., and Sydor Instruments, fueling New York State's rapidly growing high-technology sector. Through the National Laser Users Facility, the LLE attracts as many as 300 additional scientists each year from national laboratories, universities, and companies, and continues to produce some of the best and brightest Master's and Ph.D. students.

If there's any place the Federal Government should be investing, it's in the laser lab's research programs, which create jobs through the creation of spin-off companies. The work they are doing in high energy density research is remarkable, working every day to get us closer to energy independence and enhance our national security. I am proud of the LLE's contribution to the vibrant, growing high-tech community of Rochester.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we are breaking a record yet again for the most closed Congress ever. The majority has broken their own record for the most closed Congress in history. Again and again, they have wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the problems at hand. And that certainly is true today.

The American people are hoping that Congress will create jobs, expand educational opportunities, and support working families, but instead, we insist on spending millions of dollars on investigating made-up scandals and adding billions and billions to the deficit.

Today we have one rule for two bills: first, the bonus depreciation bill, and, second, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, two bills with nothing in common except to highlight the majority's insistence of choosing policy over people.

Now, H.R. 4718 would make bonus depreciation permanent. This is a policy that maybe you have never heard of, but it is a policy that used to be bipartisan and still would be on a 1- or 2-year basis, like the Senate has proposed. It is designed as a temporary measure, and I emphasize ``temporary'' because if it isn't temporary, it is not effective.

Bonus depreciation gives businesses an extra large immediate tax deduction for a portion of the cost of investments in equipment. Instead of spending more of the deduction over future years, it incentivizes purchasing equipment now in order to provide an immediate boost to the economy, instead of in the future when the incentive may not be available.

And that is how it has always temporarily worked. But if we make it permanent, then the taxpayers are simply subsidizing the cost of the equipment that businesses would need to purchase anyway.

My good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is as good a businessman as he is a Congressman--and that is saying a lot--said yesterday that in 2003, his small business went out and bought $100,000 worth of computers specifically because he could take advantage of the bonus depreciation, which was in place and was a very smart thing for him to have done. And that is exactly how bonus depreciation is supposed to work.

Mr. Cole knew computers would be cheaper at that time than in a year or two, when the tax credit would have expired. So he spent the money on equipment. And that surely helped the economy, and I am sure it created some jobs.

But why would Mr. Cole buy the computers immediately if he knew the tax credit would be there forever? He wouldn't, I don't believe. We will talk about that later.

This tool was put in place between 2002 and 2005, at 30 percent and then at 50 percent. It was reenacted in 2008 and then extended four times, often as part of a larger stimulus package, most recently at 50 percent. That expired at the end of 2013.

Now, when enacted as a temporary measure, there has been bipartisan support. However, the bill we have before us intends to make it permanent, completely negating the purpose of the bonus depreciation as a temporary measure.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into the change, and they said, ``Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness'' and that bonus depreciation ``was enacted for a specific, short-term purpose.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now insert the Congressional Research Service's report, ``Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues,'' from March 24, 2014, into the Record.

[From Congressional Research Service,

Mar. 24, 2014]

Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues

(By Jane G. Gravelle, Senior Specialist in Economic Policy)

Summary

The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 (S. 1859), which would extend

expiring tax provisions for a year, includes bonus

depreciation. The temporary provisions enacted in the past

for only a year or two and extended multiple times are

generally referred to collectively as the ``extenders.'' One

reason advanced for these temporary provisions is that time

is needed to evaluate them. Most of these provisions,

however, have been extended multiple times, and some suggest

that these provisions are actually permanent but are extended

a year or two at a time because permanent provisions would

significantly increase the costs in the budget horizon.

Historically, bonus depreciation has not been a traditional

``extender.''

Bonus depreciation allows half of equipment investment to

be deducted immediately rather than depreciated over a period

of time. Bonus depreciation was enacted for a specific,

short-term purpose: to provide an economic stimulus during

the recession. Most stimulus provisions have expired. Bonus

depreciation has been in place six years (2008-2013),

contrasted with an earlier use of bonus depreciation in place

for three years. Is bonus depreciation temporary or

permanent? The analysis of bonus depreciation differs for a

temporary stimulus provision, compared to a permanent

provision that can affect the size and allocation of the

capital stock.

A temporary investment subsidy was expected to be more

effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus,

encouraging firms to invest while the benefit was in place.

Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. Yet,

research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very

effective, and probably less effective than the tax cuts or

spending increases that have now lapsed.

If bonus depreciation is made permanent, it increases

accelerated depreciation for equipment, contributing to

lower, and in some cases more negative, effective tax rates.

In contrast, prominent tax reform proposals would reduce

accelerated depreciation. Making bonus depreciation a

permanent provision would significantly increase its

budgetary cost.

Compared to a statutory corporate tax rate of 35%, bonus

depreciation lowers the effective tax rate for equipment from

an estimated 26% rate to a 15% rate. Buildings are taxed

approximately at the statutory rate. Total tax rates would be

slightly higher because of stockholder taxes. Because nominal

interest is deducted, however, effective tax rates with debt

finance can be negative. For equity assets taxed at an

effective rate of 35%, the effective tax rate on debt-

financed investment is a negative 5%. The rate on equipment

without bonus depreciation is minus 19%; with bonus

depreciation it is minus 37%.

If bonus depreciation is permanent, estimates of U.S.

effective tax rates reflecting concerns that the U.S. rate is

higher than that of other countries overstate the effective

U.S. corporate tax rate; U.S. effective tax rates on

equipment would be significantly lower than the OECD average.

Moving to permanent bonus depreciation is inconsistent with

tax reform proposals made by the Wyden-Coats bill, the Senate

Finance Committee Staff discussion draft, and Chairman Camp's

proposal. All of these proposals would reduce the current

accelerated depreciation for equipment.

The usual extenders cost a fraction of the cost of

permanent provisions in a 10-year budget window, but bonus

depreciation is a smaller fraction because it is a timing

provision. A one-year extension costs $5 billion for FY2014-

FY2024, less than 2% of the cost of $263 billion for a

permanent provision.

What the majority is fond of saying is that this bill would bring in $10 billion in revenue. And I heard it over and over again at the Rules Committee last night, that we are going to have $10 billion in revenue. But what they fail to say is that over 10 years, it is going to cost us $287 billion, nearly $300 billion, which could buy us a lot of high-speed rail, a lot of bridge infrastructure, a lot of highway work. But what we are now doing is a permanent subsidy to make tax cuts to every business that wants to buy equipment.

Now, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scored this at $287 billion over 10 years. We are not making that up. The majority is cobbling together a piecemeal approach, and it will not work. We would love to have tax reform, we cry out for tax reform, but this isn't it.

To cap it all off, this is another closed rule. And let me say what that means. Even if a Member wanted to offer an amendment to pay for the nearly $300 billion cost of this bill--which is the rules under which we operate, you know, PAYGO--they wouldn't be allowed.

There are so many better things to spend that $300 billion on, the things that we really need in this country. But the closed rule ensures that it would stifle the debate and hijack the process. And, more than that, we know the Senate will not take this up.

So, once again, we are doing a bill that might make some people feel good but not if they think about it a little bit. Because even the businesses who are going to be prospering from the tax decrease are going to be responsible for the loss of $300 billion.

So with the second bill, which is H.R. 5016, the Financial Services Appropriations, the majority is cherry-picking which agencies to fund and which to strangle for purely political purposes. They will continue chasing down the all-but-defunct IRS conspiracy rabbit, getting funding for the IRS but making it so that $2 billion worth of the tax revenue will not be collected because they have cut the budget of the IRS so much. So add that $2 billion to the $300 billion that we are voting on today for depreciation, and add that onto the deficit, too, since it is not paid for.

In addition, as the majority crisscrosses the country touting states' rights, they have also put forward legislation that obstructs, once again, the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting funding for constitutionally protected medical care. The majority insists on ensuring that women are second-class citizens, and they continue to chip away at our constitutional rights.

Furthermore, this bill continues to prevent multi-State policies under the Affordable Care Act from providing coverage for abortions under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, except in the most desperate of circumstances.

We need to say over and over again that, of the women in this country who are using birth control, 58 percent--more than half of them--are using it for medical reasons. And they are being deprived. Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the women in this country who are using prescription contraception are using it because they have medical issues, and it is expensive. But we will not let them get any help because we simply don't believe in providing health care for women.

Government workers deserve the same benefits and the same access to comprehensive health care as those in the private sector enjoy. It is, in fact, dangerous for the majority to target abortion care and require its exclusion from health insurance plans that include other important and necessary reproductive health services. Women expect and deserve the best health care and coverage that fits their needs.

And let's remember that 58 percent of the women who use oral contraceptives use them for medical purposes, not just for birth control.

I would like to be able to say that women should expect their government to be able to put their health and safety above election- year politics, but this is what we have come to expect here. Women deserve better. But I am afraid in the House, women's rights, again, continue to be undermined. Time and again, we have prioritized in this House--some of us--politics over people.

Let me mention the veterans, for example. Listen to this. This is really important to know. While those veterans who have served and sacrificed for our country are waiting months in line for medical care, the House majority will spend more money investigating and trying to debunk a nonexistent Benghazi scandal than helping our veterans get the care they need. That is right. The committee investigating Benghazi has a much larger budget than the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If that is not a political statement, I don't know what is.

And I need to point out that just yesterday, transcripts from the Armed Services Committee about Benghazi proved that everything that could have been done was done.

And I know that when I last did the rule on the floor on the special Benghazi committee that I received a call from the mother of one of the Navy SEALs that died, saying that she really wished the Congress would stop dragging their family back through that horror. They know what happened.

Instead of working on the real problems--and we have got them--they are finding time to sue the President for doing his job, to hold vote after vote to repeal ObamaCare. And let's remember the shutdown of the government that took $24 billion in that short time out of this economy.

So we come here to make things better. And with these actions and with this behavior, we make things worse.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

May I inquire if my friend has any more requests for time?

We are going to call for the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the legislation that would treat wildfires like similar major natural disasters and ensure that money intended for managing public lands is actually used for that purpose.

It is time to make commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal on wildfires, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is prepared to close, I will close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority continues to choose politics over people, create problems instead of solving them, and insist on silencing debate in the Chamber. It is time to consider the real problems facing the country, and with summer comes the destructive fire season that affects so many of my colleagues' districts.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and move to consider the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to make the commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, how quickly we forget what got us into the economic mess in the first place.

I was here 6 short years ago when the recklessness on Wall Street triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and cost millions of hardworking Americans their jobs and their homes. Since then, Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have enacted reforms, known commonly as Dodd-Frank, to stop the worst of these abuses with the aim of preventing another economic meltdown. Obviously, since that time, copious American dollars have been spent, and legions of lobbyists have come in, to try to undo Dodd-Frank. This is the first of other bills that we will get that will do away with regulation. Unfortunately, the authorization passed out of the Rules Committee last night is a backdoor attempt to undo some of the crucial reforms and is a precursor to another financial crisis.

Why wouldn't the Rules Committee give equal debate time to the Financial Services Committee, which has real jurisdiction over what we are doing here today? Why would they disallow that?

It is because they didn't want anybody to hear it. If the Agriculture Committee were unanimous, I don't know what its reason was, but many Democrats and, certainly, those of us on the Rules Committee and others who are going to be here today want to be solidly in the ``no'' column because, if what we fear will happen happens, we want the country to know that somebody tried to stop it as there are crucial reforms that we talk about in this bill which are going to handcuff and obstruct the law enforcement officials who are charged with overseeing the markets and enforcing the regulations on Wall Street.

When we found out 6 years ago, I was a member of the leadership then and was chair of the Rules Committee. We got a message on Saturday afternoon. It was three paragraphs, which Mr. Hastings did a wonderful job of explaining, from Secretary Paulson and the head of the Fed, Mr. Bernanke. It was very short and quite succinct. Basically, if we did not provide them--the Treasury and the Fed--with $800 billion by Tuesday--and this was Saturday--the financial services in the United States would be defunct. We would be finished.

This was pretty frightening because all we knew is that fancy things were going on on Wall Street and that mortgages were being chopped up and sold in pieces. I think they unloaded a lot of it onto Germany's Deutsche Bank. We not only affected our economy, but we affected other parts of the world. It was a disaster--people lost houses that they had spent their lives trying to get; children were displaced from their homes and from their schools; people were without their jobs--simply because they were playing tricks, passing paper back and forth to each other, and there was not strong enough regulation in this country for the people who did the oversight to even know what was going on.

This was one of the most awful things that we had ever gone through. We watched what happened to our neighbors and to those in other parts of this country where people were literally forced out onto the streets because of what Wall Street had done, not because of anything they had done. People who had paid their mortgages faithfully every single month suddenly found out that those mortgages were worthless, that their mortgages were more expensive to them at that time than their houses were worth on the market.

Why in the world would we have any attempt here to undo any of that? Those lobbyists and all of that money made their statements pretty clear.

On our side, we are trying to hold up the other side. We want to speak for those people who lost their jobs. We want to speak for those people who lost their homes. We want to say to the small businesses that had no access to capital and went under that we are trying to protect your interests here.

Whatever happens, we know we don't have the votes--you have got them. We do know that this is a majority that hates regulation whether it is clean air or clean water. Whatever it is, get rid of it. Then you come back down here to Wall Street and know the effect that it has had. We haven't completely recovered from that recession. God knows we have not passed any legislation in the House of Representatives to create jobs or to make it any better. We do everything that we can just to benefit those people who have the money. We all know how this movie ends. If it moves forward as written, we are sowing the seeds for future disaster in this country.

Last night, at the Rules Committee, we called for a ``no'' vote, and we said specifically what we were doing. We wanted to be on record on our side as trying to protect the American public and their futures so that they have some confidence again in what they are doing. We would love it if banks would again stop passing paper back and forth to each other and would make loans and get people back to work. We, of course, were not able to do that as 2-9, I believe, was the vote. We will see what happens when this comes to the floor, as it certainly will. We just simply, as I said, want to make sure because, the last time this came up, we didn't have the opportunity to speak. We are a solid ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act.

Not only will this bill create badly-needed jobs, as co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, I'm especially pleased that this bill establishes the Great Lakes Navigation System.

The Great Lakes comprise nearly 20 percent of the world's fresh water and are a precious resource. They're responsible for nearly 130,000 jobs in the United States, and the economic activity they generate creates over $18 billion in annual revenue; maintaining the Great Lakes truly maintains our Nation.

By joining ports and waterways throughout the Great Lakes and establishing the Great Lakes Navigation System, we will ensure that there is adequate funding to keep our infrastructure maintained and strong.

In fact, in my own district, we started dredging the Port of Rochester last week, and by establishing the Great Lakes Navigation System, funding to maintain the port and dredge in the future will be consistent and reliable through the Harbor Maintenance Fund.

With this bill, we make certain that the 145 million tons of commodities that are carried through the Great Lakes Navigation System every year can be transported efficiently and safely, and I commend everyone who worked on this tremendous achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 attack on Benghazi was a tragedy that took the

lives of brave American public servants representing and serving our country. And Congress has an obligation here--both to the families of the victims and to the country--to try to prevent this from ever happening again. But that is not at all what we are doing here today.

The Senate has produced two bipartisan reports on the issue, and the State Department's Accountability Review Board has produced a constructive, unbiased report. There is a vast body of evidence already collected, and none of it demonstrates any sort of coverup or conspiracy.

The majority here has had 13 congressional hearings over four committees, 50 briefings, produced five reports and 25,000 pages of documentation, wasted countless millions of dollars, and has gotten absolutely nowhere. One more committee weighted in favor of the majority is not going to do any better. We have bottomed out on Benghazi.

Nonetheless, the majority has repeatedly demonstrated that rather than engaging in a serious, objective examination of the circumstances, they want to use the tragedy as an excuse to generate partisan talking points, and then has descended into the crass and the unbelievable.

Several press reports this week, including one from Politico, indicate that the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a fundraising email entitled ``You Can Become a Benghazi Watchdog Right Now,'' and that leads to a donation page where you have to pay to be a Benghazi watchdog. And even after their fundraising effort was exposed, Republicans are continuing to use this effort to raise money off of this tragedy. This morning's Politico says: ``Republicans stick with Benghazi cash grab.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit into the Record these two articles from Politico, May 8 and May 9. The first one, ``NRCC''--which stands for the National Republican Congressional Committee-- ``fundraising off Benghazi,'' and the second one this morning, ``Republicans stick with Benghazi cash grab.''

[From POLITICO, May 7, 2014]

NRCC Fundraising Off of Benghazi

(By Jake Sherman)

The House Republican campaign arm is rebuffing the chairman

of the Benghazi select committee and is raising money off the

GOP's investigation into the 2012 attack.

A post on the National Republican Congressional Committee

website dated May 6 is titled ``You Can Become a Benghazi

Watchdog Right Now.''

``House Republicans will make sure that no one will get

away from [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee,'' the blog

post says. ``This is going to be a national effort for a

national investigation.''

Once a visitor to the site enters their name, email and ZIP

code, it asks for a donation to ``stop Democrats from

controlling all of Washington.''

But Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whom Speaker John Boehner (R-

Ohio) tapped to chair the panel, said Wednesday morning on

MSNBC's ``Morning Joe'' he would ask Republicans to forgo

fundraising off the attacks.

``Yes, and I will cite myself as an example,'' Gowdy said.

``I have never sought to raise a single penny on the backs of

four murdered Americans.''

For right now, the NRCC doesn't appear to be backing down.

``The Obama administration has not been honest with the

American people with regards to the security failures in

Benghazi, which left four Americans dead,'' said NRCC

spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. ``Our goal is to hold Democrats in

Congress accountable who vote against creating the select

committee on Benghazi and who continue to try to sweep this

controversy under the rug.''

Additionally, reports today from a prominent journalist say that Mr. Boehner himself says that he will not try to stop the fundraising.

The majority is demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that like the many, many votes we have taken trying to kill health care, this is a political move. That is the most crass and awful thing to do to the families of these four people who died. We keep over and over rubbing salt into that awful wound by bringing this up over and over. And how do you think they feel now knowing what this game is about in the House of Representatives?

I am appalled the majority would use these deaths for political gain and political money when what the families of the victims and Americans want to do is to ensure it never happens again. But we are doing nothing in the world to ensure that.

Not only is the majority disregarding the bipartisan findings, but their own process is so wrought with error, partisanship, and deception that leaders in their own party are calling foul.

The Oversight Committee has produced several witnesses of dubious quality, but the most recent one is a brigadier general, to testify about the minority, and the minority was only give his name and had no way--we didn't have any address or anything else--to even verify his credentials.

We are indebted to Congressman Buck McKeon, Armed Services Committee chairman, who discredited this witness by calling Brigadier General Robert Lovell an unreliable witness and criticized Lovell's assertion that the State Department was not quick to deploy troops to respond to the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Lovell testified Thursday before Issa's oversight panel.

Congressman McKeon stated:

Brigadier General Lovell did not serve in a capacity that

gave him reliable insight into operational options available

to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific

courses of action not taken.

McKeon added:

The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a

dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that

night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, emails,

and other documents. We have no evidence that State

Department officials delayed the decision to deploy what few

resources DOD had available to respond.

How tragic is that? How tacky is that? How beneath the dignity of the House of Representatives is that?

I have an amendment to this resolution based on a simple premise that, if this thing is going to be put together and funded, that it really does some kind of work bipartisanly, which would be really strange in this House, but the idea of having another committee to try to get different results from all of other committees and all of the other hearings with the results they have had really is a foolish waste of time.

Our amendment makes membership on the committee equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. We know already that is not going to happen.

It guarantees the minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions--no such luck.

It guarantees equal distribution of money, staffing, and other resources of the committee.

It requires the committee to establish written rules--that would be a good one--specifically including rules concerning how documents and other information may be obtained, used, or released.

It guarantees equal access to evidence and materials of the committee and perhaps can identify witnesses who are going to be coming before the committee.

It provides for transparency of the committee's expenditures and budgeting.

It ensures that a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence includes at least one minority member.

Finally, it ensures that the majority has a say in decisions about extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful what is happening here today. People, not just persons right now, but I believe that future historians looking at the setup of this committee will be appalled, as all of the rest of us are on our side, that to make use politically and financially of the tragedy of the loss of four brave Americans is beneath contempt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Government Operations.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. CONNOLLY. We probably couldn't have done more than we

did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree--I think all Americans agree, and we certainly understand from the Speaker that he agrees that the attack on Benghazi was a tragedy; but here we are, once again, riling up the community and the country and causing, again, grief to the families of the four people who died, in a pursuit of some kind of truth that they were unable to find in 2 years of hearings, over four committees, 13 congressional hearings, 50 briefings, five reports, 25,000 pages of documentation, and wasted millions of dollars, going nowhere, and that is just in the House.

The Senate has held hearings. The State Department did a thorough report; and yet, now, after all that, we want the truth.

What does it say about the House of Representatives that whatever that was going on over there did not get to the truth?

This is so reminiscent of what we have done in the House of Representatives by doing over and over and over again, like trying to repeal the health care, that we are just going to keep doing it until you reach whatever it is you want.

Well, we know what it is you want with this special committee. We understand that thoroughly. Earlier today--I want to make a comment, that one of my friends on the other side of the aisle--I deeply regret this--cited a report claiming that the Democrats were

fundraising off of the crass Republican fundraising off Benghazi.

Certainly, we looked into that because I was very concerned because I was the one making the charge about the fundraising. It is absolutely false that Democrats are doing that.

That report was from The Daily Caller, a conservative Web site, and all they found was that the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted a statement on his Web site condemning the Republican campaign committee for their attempt to capitalize and fundraise off the tragedy in Benghazi.

Let's stick to the facts here. You are going to continue. As I understand it, several reporters have asked the leadership do they intend to stop fundraising off these people's deaths; and the answer is, no, they don't.

So what we are doing here, again, is an awful waste of time, is looking for another answer to something that--unless you get some answer that you want, I guess we will go on even yet another year or so.

Now, one more committee that will be weighted in favor of the majority, as this one is expected to do, will do absolutely nothing to yield different results.

I had an amendment to this bill that was based on a simple premise, that the investigations and reports on the tragic attack in Benghazi produced by the House committees so far have been nothing but partisan and political.

My amendment would have made membership on the committee equally divided between the minority and the majority and would have guaranteed minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions and guaranteed equal distribution and money and staffing and other resources of the committee and certainly have ensured that the witnesses who come before that committee, unlike the other witnesses that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has had, who were totally ineligible to even speak on the subject--one of them, I gather, was giving all the details of what happened that night, but he happened to be in Germany at the time.

Had our amendment passed, we could have added some decorum to this process, and we could have worked to ensure the tragedy never happens again, but it is clear that this majority will not allow that.

So we have seen all the reports. We know what everybody thinks; and we know that, once again, we will be going into this because you are the majority, and you have the votes to do it.

I am appalled by this posturing. To use the tragedy of those four deaths for political and financial gain is shameful and contemptible.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 20 seconds to just respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, I would be outraged, too, if anybody did the things that he accused us of doing, and I don't believe a word of it.

I am now pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Government Operations.

Mr. Speaker, for rebuttal, I am going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more requests for time?

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I reserve the balance of my time as long as my colleague has speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I think probably the best way that I can close would be with another quote from the man who is fast becoming my favorite Member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Buck McKeon, Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee.

He said to the Associated Press on April 10:

I think I pretty well have been satisfied that given where

the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how

quickly it dissipated, we probably could not have done more

than we did. At some point, we think we will have as much of

this story as we are going to get and move on.

Mr. McKeon, it is long past time for us to move on.

I really appreciate so much hearing from Mr. Connolly, the statement from Ambassador Stevens' family--I had not heard it before--and the eloquence with which they talked about him. Remember, he had only been there in Benghazi--was basically there for the day, and everybody said--and all of the things that I have read, he was that kind of man.

He spoke the language, and he wanted to be out with the people. He would not have wanted to be behind the walls of a compound, and he knew what he was doing, and he made his choices.

The thing that rang so strong with me was the one thing that they said that he would not have wanted was to become a political pawn, and that is exactly what we are making of Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans who died in that tragic event.

Without any question, we are also causing, once again, to those four families of people who loved them most grievous hardship to deal with all this again, and it is being done for politics. It is being done to raise money.

So I want to close by paraphrasing another great American at another time and ask the majority: Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.